Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances (original) (raw)
Related papers
2018
BackgroundWell-validated risk models are critical for risk stratified breast cancer prevention. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimation (iCARE) tool for comparative model validation of five-year risk of invasive breast cancer in a prospective cohort, and to make projections for population risk stratification.MethodsPerformance of two recently developed models, iCARE-BPC3 and iCARE-Lit, were compared with two established models (BCRAT, IBIS) based on classical risk factors in a UK-based cohort of 64,874 women (863 cases) aged 35-74 years. Risk projections in US White non-Hispanic women aged 50-70 years were made to assess potential improvements in risk stratification by adding mammographic breast density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS).ResultsThe best calibrated models were iCARE-Lit (expected to observed number of cases (E/O)=0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87 to 1.11)) for women younger than 50 years; and iCARE-BPC3 (E/O=1.00 (0.93 to 1.09)) for women ...
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2014
Breast cancer risk prediction models are widely used in clinical practice. They should be useful in identifying high risk women for screening in limited-resource countries. However, previous models showed poor performance in derived and validated settings. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a breast cancer risk prediction model for Thai women. This cross-sectional study consisted of derived and validation phases. Data collected at Ramathibodi and other two hospitals were used for deriving and externally validating models, respectively. Multiple logistic regression was applied to construct the model. Calibration and discrimination performances were assessed using the observed/expected ratio and concordance statistic (C-statistic), respectively. A bootstrap with 200 repetitions was applied for internal validation. Age, menopausal status, body mass index, and use of oral contraceptives were significantly associated with breast cancer and were included in the model. Observed/ex...
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2001
Background: Women and their clinicians are increasingly encouraged to use risk estimates derived from statistical models, primarily that of Gail et al., to aid decision making regarding potential prevention options for breast cancer, including chemoprevention with tamoxifen. Methods: We evaluated both the goodness of fit of the Gail et al. model 2 that predicts the risk of developing invasive breast cancer specifically and its discriminatory accuracy at the individual level in the Nurses' Health Study. We began with a cohort of 82 109 white women aged 45-71 years in 1992 and applied the model of Gail et al. to these women over a 5-year followup period to estimate a 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The model fit well in the total sample (ratio of expected [E] to observed [O] numbers of cases = 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 0.99). Underprediction was slightly greater for younger women (<60 years), but in most age and risk factor strata, E/O ratios were close to 1.0. The model fit equally well (E/O ratio = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.99) in a subset of women reporting recent screening (i.e., within 1 year before the baseline); among women with an estimated 5-year risk of developing invasive breast cancer of 1.67% or greater, the E/O ratio was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.96 to 1.12). The concordance statistic, which indicates discriminatory accuracy, for the Gail et al. model 2 when used to estimate 5-year risk was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.56 to 0.60). Only 3.3% of the 1354 cases of breast cancer observed in the cohort arose among women who fell into age-risk strata expected to have statistically significant net health benefits from prophylactic tamoxifen use. Conclusions: The Gail et al. model 2 fit well in this sample in terms of predicting numbers of breast cancer cases in specific risk factor strata but had modest discriminatory accuracy at the individual level. This finding has implications for use of the model in clinical counseling of individual women. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:358-66]
A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models
British Journal of Cancer
BACKGROUND: Individualised breast cancer risk prediction models may be key for planning risk-based screening approaches. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and quality assessment of these models addressed to women in the general population. METHODS: We followed the Cochrane Collaboration methods searching in Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases up to February 2018. We included studies reporting a model to estimate the individualised risk of breast cancer in women in the general population. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Results are narratively summarised. RESULTS: We included 24 studies out of the 2976 citations initially retrieved. Twenty studies were based on four models, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), the Rosner & Colditz model, and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS), whereas four studies addressed other original models. Four of the studies included genetic information. The quality of the studies was moderate with some limitations in the discriminative power and data inputs. A maximum AUROC value of 0.71 was reported in the study conducted in a screening context. CONCLUSION: Individualised risk prediction models are promising tools for implementing risk-based screening policies. However, it is a challenge to recommend any of them since they need further improvement in their quality and discriminatory capacity.
Modeling risk assessment for breast cancer in symptomatic women: a Saudi Arabian study
Cancer Management and Research, 2019
Background: Despite the continuing increase in the breast cancer incidence rate among Saudi Arabian women, no breast cancer risk-prediction model is available in this population. The aim of this research was to develop a risk-assessment tool to distinguish between high risk and low risk of breast cancer in a sample of Saudi women who were screened for breast cancer. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on symptomatic women who underwent breast mass biopsies between September 8, 2015 and November 8, 2017 at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Results: A total of 404 (63.8%) malignant breast biopsies and 229 (36.2%) benign breast biopsies were analyzed. Women ≥40 years old (aOR: 6.202, CI 3.497-11.001, P=0.001), hormonereplacement therapy (aOR 24.365, 95% CI 8.606-68.987, P=0.001), postmenopausal (aOR 3.058, 95% CI 1.861-5.024, P=0.001), and with a family history of breast cancer (aOR 2.307, 95% CI 1.142-4.658, P=0.020) were independently associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. This model showed an acceptable fit and had area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.877 (95% CI 0.851-0.903), with optimism-corrected area under the curve of 0.865. Conclusion: The prediction model developed in this study has a high ability in predicting increased breast cancer risk in our facility. Combining information on age, use of hormone therapy, postmenopausal status, and family history of breast cancer improved the degree of discriminatory accuracy of breast cancer prediction. Our risk model may assist in initiating population-screening programs and prompt clinical decision making to manage cases and prevent unfavorable outcomes.
Review of non-clinical risk models to aid prevention of breast cancer
Cancer Causes & Control
A disease risk model is a statistical method which assesses the probability that an individual will develop one or more diseases within a stated period of time. Such models take into account the presence or absence of specific epidemiological risk factors associated with the disease and thereby potentially identify individuals at higher risk. Such models are currently used clinically to identify people at higher risk, including identifying women who are at increased risk of developing breast cancer. Many genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk models have been developed previously. We have evaluated existing non-genetic/non-clinical models for breast cancer that incorporate modifiable risk factors. This review focuses on risk models that can be used by women themselves in the community in the absence of clinical risk factors characterization. The inclusion of modifiable factors in these models means that they can be used to improve primary prevention and health education pertinent for breast cancer. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Fourteen studies were eligible for review with sample sizes ranging from 654 to 248,407 participants. All models reviewed had acceptable calibration measures, with expected/observed (E/O) ratios ranging from 0.79 to 1.17. However, discrimination measures were variable across studies with concordance statistics (C-statistics) ranging from 0.56 to 0.89. We conclude that breast cancer risk models that include modifiable risk factors have been well calibrated but have less ability to discriminate. The latter may be a consequence of the omission of some significant risk factors in the models or from applying models to studies with limited sample sizes. More importantly, external validation is missing for most of the models. Generalization across models is also problematic as some variables may not be considered applicable to some populations and each model performance is conditioned by particular population characteristics. In conclusion, it is clear that there is still a need to develop a more reliable model for estimating breast cancer risk which has a good calibration, ability to accurately discriminate high risk and with better generalizability across populations.
Development of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model
2004
Background: Risk prediction models have been widely used to identify women at higher risk of breast cancer. We aimed to develop a model for absolute breast cancer risk prediction for Nigerian women. Methods: A total of 1,811 breast cancer cases and 2,225 controls from the Nigerian Breast Cancer Study (NBCS, 1998-2015) were included. Subjects were randomly divided into the training and validation sets. Incorporating local incidence rates, multivariable logistic regressions were used to develop the model. Results: The NBCS model included age, age at menarche, parity, duration of breastfeeding, family history of breast cancer, height, body mass index, benign breast diseases, and alcohol consumption. The model developed in the training set performed well in the validation set. The discriminating accuracy of the NBCS model [area under ROC curve (AUC) ¼ 0.703, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.687-0.719] was better than the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) model (AUC ¼ 0.605; 95% CI, 0.586-0.624), Gail model for white population (AUC ¼ 0.551; 95% CI, 0.531-0.571), and Gail model for black population (AUC ¼ 0.545; 95% CI, 0.525-0.565). Compared with the BWHS and two Gail models, the net reclassification improvement of the NBCS model were 8.26%, 13.45%, and 14.19%, respectively. Conclusions: We have developed a breast cancer risk prediction model specific to women in Nigeria, which provides a promising and indispensable tool to identify women in need of breast cancer early detection in Sub-Saharan Africa populations. Impact: Our model is the first breast cancer risk prediction model in Africa. It can be used to identify women at high risk for breast cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(6); 636-43. Ó2018 AACR.
Application of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models in Clinical Practice
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2003
Breast cancer risk assessment provides an estimation of disease risk that can be used to guide management for women at all levels of risk. In addition, the likelihood that breast cancer risk is due to specific genetic susceptibility (such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations) can be determined. Recent developments have reinforced the clinical importance of breast cancer risk assessment. Tamoxifen chemoprevention as well as prevention studies such as the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene are available to women at increased risk of developing breast cancer. In addition, specific management strategies are now defined for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Risk may be assessed as the likelihood of developing breast cancer (using risk assessment models) or as the likelihood of detecting a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (using prior probability models). Each of the models has advantages and disadvantages, and all need to be interpreted in context. We review available risk assessment tools and discuss the...
Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for Women in Nigeria
Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2018
Risk prediction models have been widely used to identify women at higher risk of breast cancer. We aimed to develop a model for absolute breast cancer risk prediction for Nigerian women. A total of 1,811 breast cancer cases and 2,225 controls from the Nigerian Breast Cancer Study (NBCS, 1998-2015) were included. Subjects were randomly divided into the training and validation sets. Incorporating local incidence rates, multivariable logistic regressions were used to develop the model. The NBCS model included age, age at menarche, parity, duration of breastfeeding, family history of breast cancer, height, body mass index, benign breast diseases, and alcohol consumption. The model developed in the training set performed well in the validation set. The discriminating accuracy of the NBCS model [area under ROC curve (AUC) = 0.703, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.687-0.719] was better than the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) model (AUC = 0.605; 95% CI, 0.586-0.624), Gail model for wh...